Supreme Court again favors the State in an eminent domain dispute

Award of attorney's fees in favor of landowner reversed in opinion by Justice Phil Johnson. Justice O'Neill, writing separately, would have remanded case to trial court to consider imposing sanctions on the TxDOT for improper conduct in the botched condemnation proceeding that cost landowner an arm and a leg in legal fees.

State of Texas v. Brown,
No. 05-0236 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson) ("[W]e grant the State’s petition for review. Without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment that Brown take nothing on his claim for attorney’s fees and expenses.")

THE STATE OF TEXAS v. J. GRADY BROWN, JR.; from Denton County; 2nd district
(02-04-00035-CV, 158 SW3d 68, 01-27-05)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined.

Justice O'Neill delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree fully with the Court’s conclusion that Property Code sections 21.019 and 21.0195 do not authorize the award of all fees and expenses under these circumstances. I dissent only because I would remand the case, rather than render judgment, so that the trial court may consider imposing any sanctions available under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 (authorizing sanctions when a pleading is groundless or not brought in good faith); Tex. R. Civ. P. 70 (permitting a trial court to require a party whose amended or supplemental pleading surprises and prejudices another party to pay the additional costs and expenses incurred by the surprised party as a result of the surprise); Tex. R. Civ. P. 215 (providing for sanctions when a party abuses or fails to comply with discovery proceedings and requests).

As the Court notes, we recently held that such sanctions against a condemning authority are available because Property Code section 21.018(b) stipulates that condemnation trials are to be conducted in the same manner as any other civil trial. PR Invs. & Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Texas, 251 S.W.3d 472, 480 (Tex. 2008).

As we noted in PR Investments, appropriate sanctions under the Rules of Civil Procedure may not constitute the entirety of the fees and costs; for example, perhaps only the costs associated with the untimeliness of the amendment to the petition are available here. Because PR Investments was decided after the trial court’s decision, in the interests of justice and fairness, I would remand to permit the trial court to consider sanctions under the Rules of Civil Procedure in light of PR Investments.

2008-06-06 Texas Supreme Court Decisions with Links to Opinions

Court issues two mandamus decisions involving sufficiency of expert reports in health care liability suits and one eminent domain ruling involving the University of Houston. Supreme Court also denies numerous petitions for review with today's orders.

FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Houston System, No. 05-0661 (Tex. Jun 6, 2008) (Phil Johnson) (eminent domain, condemnation)
FKM PARTNERSHIP, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM; from Harris County; 14th district (14-03-00392-CV, 178 S.W.3d 1, 04-14-05) 2 petitions The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In Re Roberts, No. 05-0362 (Tex. Jun 6, 2008)(per curiam) (med-mal, grant of 30-day extension to cure deficiencies in expert report was proper, mandamus granted against court of appeals which ruled otherwise)
IN RE SUSAN ROBERTS AND JOHN R. ROBERTS, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN JAMIE ROBERTS, JOSHUA ROBERTS, AND HALEY ROBERTS; from Potter County; 7th district (07-04-00363-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 4-27-05) relators' motion for emergency relief deniedPursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.Per Curiam Opinion (Justice Johnson not sitting)

In re Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd, No. 05-0575 (Tex. Jun 6, 2008)(per curiam)(HCLC, sufficiency of expert report, in medical malpractice suit)(court below instructed to apply new mandamus standard)
IN RE METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD., D/B/A METROPOLITAN METHODIST HOSPITAL; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-05-00305-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 05-25-05) stay order issued September 16, 2005, liftedmotion to consolidate dismissed as moot Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion